Al Mohler said the whole story of Jesus depends upon there being a literal Adam. (read here)
Al Mohler and other restrictionists have to have a real Adam. Without a real Adam, how else could he have Eve? If there were no Eve, then their little world of male headship and male supremacy would come tumbling down.
Everything hinges on Eve eatin’ that apple.
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:12-14)
See, it is right there. Eve did it, and then Adam did it. Before Eve took a bite, she argued with Satan, and quoted God’s words to Satan. BUT – Adam took one look and partook.
Now we know that in the beginning, God created male and female, and he created them equal. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (Dr. Mohler’s and the Southern Baptist Convention’s statement of faith) confirms that. They should stop here. They can’t because that would truly give women equality.
- Eve was created equal – but she was created second, after Adam
- Eve was created equal – but she was created from Adam
- Eve was created equal – but Adam was given leadership over her because he was privileged to give her a name
- Eve was created equal – but she gave in to temptation
- Eve was created equal – but she became a temptress to her husband
- Eve was created equal – but she needed a leader (“Adam! Where are you?” “I’ve invented a game, Lord. Its called Hide and seek.”)
- Eve was created equal – but she was destined to have pain in childbirth, and thus could raise children, but not a church (wait, I think I am confabulating here!)
- Eve was created equal – but she caused so many problems in Eden that they both got thrown out.
Eve became a second-class human, and in Romans 5:12, even the fact of her being the first to sin is given to Adam. Mohler says “When Adam sinned, he sinned for us, and it’s that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior. Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever.”
But it wasn’t Adam, it was Eve. Dr. Mohler, you need Eve here.
But what about Jesus? He showed up and turned the world upside down! He was hung on a cross for my sins and for Dr. Mohler’s sins and for the sins of other restrictionists (complementarians).
Just why did God seek to redeem mankind to Him? Was it just so they could continue as before? Or was it because God saw their love for the rules they made, and their exclusion of those who were not Jews, and the way they treated one-half of the human race? Perhaps that is why humans need the redemptive blood of Christ.
Will you join me and others as we speak out for equality? Will you tell the restrictionists that when God made mankind, He meant it when he made males and females in His own image. And we are reclaiming it!
bWe Baptist Women for Equality's Blog 
I have for some time refused to call people who follow the “only men lead, women only follow” crowd complementarians, which is a good term. It should not be used for hierarchalists. Now Shirley you came up with another term: restrictionists. I like that. I will call them restrictionists too. I speak up everywhere I go, I urge all to do the same.
LikeLike
I decided that we needed a new word for them that really describes them. Restrictionists came to mind as I was sitting in church yesterday!
LikeLike
I vote for Trogs, as in “troglodyte.” 🙂
LikeLike
Well, that is going to send me to my dictionary, or to my son who is up on science fiction.
LikeLike
trog·lo·dyte
noun \ˈträ-glə-ˌdīt\
Definition of TROGLODYTE
1 : a member of any of various peoples (as in antiquity) who lived or were reputed to live chiefly in caves
2 : a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes
— trog·lo·dyt·ic adjective
Examples of TROGLODYTE
the troglodytes who believed that women had no place in the military, except perhaps as nurses
Origin of TROGLODYTE
Latin troglodytae, plural, from Greek trōglodytai, from trōglē hole, cave (akin to Greek trōgein to gnaw, Armenian aracem I lead to pasture, graze) + dyein to enter
First Known Use: 1555
(Trog is also the name of Joan Crawford’s last movie – truly awful, but one you must see if you can!)
LikeLike
That covers it all! They live in caves and have outmoded attitudes.
LikeLike
T.R.O.G. = Theological Restrictions On (Of?) Gender
LikeLike
Well, now that is pretty good. We can start calling them a TROG. or restrictionist TROGS. probably “of” but “on” sounds better.
LikeLike
Eric, U R on a different plane as the rest of us, & I meant it as a compliment.
LikeLike
TROG: Tyrannous Restrictions On Girls
LikeLike
I love it!
LikeLike
Trog (with Joan Crawford):
Trailer
LikeLike
Trog?
LikeLike
I believe there will come a day when all these men in the SBC will have to apologize for their misuse of the Holy Scriptures to make women a second-class citizen when Jesus did the exact opposite.
LikeLike
Amen, and we are trying to make it happen. You know, of course, that I demanded an apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood last year for how they teach against women.
LikeLike
It would be better for them if they apologized now than later, as in the hereafter
LikeLike
Restrictionist is an accurate term. They restrict men from being able to fully apply Eph. 5:21 as well as all of the “one another” verses. They restrict women from using certain giftings of the Holy Spirit, and thus, restrict the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ.
I’m guessing they would find that term offensive and that we’re somehow misinterpreting what they are saying. But, I also don’t like to call them complementarians because that term is so misleading in the way they use it. I’m wishing that they would come up with a more accurate term for themselves. I wonder if they would mind being referred to as non-equalitarians since they promote the teaching that men and women are unequal in their roles/functions? It seems to be a defining point about their gender beliefs.
Since complementarianism is a more accurate term for egalitarians/equalitarians, I find it annoying that we have to qualify it with non-hierarchical or say that we are complementarians without hierarchy… or caste-free complementarians.
Part of the battle for setting women free is a war of words.
LikeLike
The restrictionists call themselves complementarians to mask the true nature of their caste system. Wolf in sheepskin.
LikeLike
Watched Eric’s video TROG. Everywhere a trog goes, people are terrified. OK, I get it now.
LikeLike
If their basis of female submission is in the Genesis story, the problem is that they make plenty of errors regarding that story.
1) Women are inferior because Adam named his wife woman, exercising authority over her by giving her a name. As per Ancient Hebrew custom.
Hello? The story of Eden is set BEFORE ANCIENT HEBREW TIMES. Before the naming-means-authority belief. Saying that Adam had authority because his ancestors would have endorsed the idea is ridiculous. That kind of belief didn’t exist in Pre-Fall – thus he didn’t exert authority.
2) Eve tempted Adam.
Read all Bible versions. They say that Adam was with her while she was being tricked by the snake and that he simply took it from her hand when she offered it to him (because she thought it was good). He was well aware of what was going on. He sinned without so much as a pause. And then blames Eve AND God for his own action. (“It was the woman you sent to be with me Lord – she gave me the fruit and I ate.”)
3) God gave Eve as Adam’s “helper”. Helper means she was made for a minor role, made for a minor role means she can’t do anything more.
Really? When I read “helper”, I interpret “partner”. Which is a much better description because it fits the verse that God made both man and woman in his own image and said that THEY shall rule over the earth. It also fits Adam’s proclamation that Eve is bones of his bones and flesh of his flesh.
4) Eve caused them to be kicked out of the garden. She was deceived and ate, then offered it to Adam to eat.
No, it was quite clearly both who sinned. The difference is that Eve was tricked by the Father of Lies, Satan, and thought she was doing an OK thing. Yes she should have put God first, though. Adam, on the other hand, did not correct the snake or stop Eve. Paul says that he wasn’t deceived. If he wasn’t then the reason for his sin must be direct disobedience despite knowing it was wrong. Rebellion.
5) Adam was made first, therefore should be in charge.
God says that he made both male and female in his image. Paul says that women are joint heirs to the kingdom and there is no difference between male and female in Christ. The very name “Adam” means human, not just man. The ONLY time Paul uses the order of creation to support a message is when referring to whether women should have their heads covered in church (he then doubles-back on himself and tells the church to make its own decision, because in the Lord the two sexes are not independent of each other – woman came from man but also man comes from woman). The other time is when he says women shouldn’t “usurp” the jobs of the church-educated men and preach when they weren’t actually preachers and didn’t know the doctrine like they did – in Ephesus (the focal point of 1 Timothy) the deacons happened to be male. That was just the circumstances of the time. Order of creation is not grounds for determining who is in charge all the time and who should follow all the time.
When Paul says that Adam wasn’t deceived but Eve was, who fell into transgression, it doesn’t mean that Eve transgressed while Adam didn’t. It means that Eve transgressed BECAUSE of being deceived, whereas Adam didn’t. It’s a warning to the women that they’ll sin through believing and preaching the wrong things. Given the context, which is actually SHOWN IN THE BIBLE ITSELF, these 1 Timothy verses are NOT a command against women preaching to men. It’s a command against the women of Ephesus preaching the wrong things to everyone behind the backs of those who knew true doctrine (who happened to be men). “Learn quietly with submission” meant that women, new to church teachings, should listen to the men who happened to know the teachings, and not argue their own ideas. 1 Timothy gives a clear impression that the women Paul was addressing were actually being quite rowdy.
LikeLike
Welcome! We are delighted that you joined our discussion. These are excellent points that you made here. Thank you for your voice. Together we can make a difference.
LikeLike
Thanks! Another point I’d like to add to number 3 is that the word for helper, ‘ezer’, is the same used when describing how God helped his people.
http://www.preceptaustin.org/hebrew_word_study_on_help.htm
The word ‘helper’ does not automatically mean an inferior role, especially since when God helps, he often does the hardest work.
LikeLike
Will someone tell me where I can find Al Mohler’s comment about “ordaining a woman is no different than ordaining a homosexual?” I saw it on the news about a year ago but cannot locate it. I have listed more of the restictionists comments from Dr. Bruce Wares, Paige Patterson and Timothy Bayly – all three members of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. If you take a look at that – you may have to take a Nexium cause it may upset what you read. I have listed some of the comments on my website: marygruben.com/passageslifecoaching
LikeLike
Welcome, Mary! We are so glad you joined us. I love your use of hte word ‘restrictionists.’ I don’t know where this is but if it is on the website anywhere, the readers here will let you know. Thanks so much.
LikeLike